Amazon.com Widgets

Boy who witnesses his own father's murder gets revenge on accused: Should he be jailed or institutionalized?

  • Murder is against the law, despite any reason behind it

    Murder, eventhough it's for revenge should not be justified. We don't have any right to end any man's life. The victim families who got their family member murdered should let the law to take care of the case. We could only help the officer to find fact and prove to help them solving the case.

  • Yes, i agree.

    Yes, i agree that the boy should either be jailed or institutionalized. This will depend on his age. If he is above 18 years, he must be jailed. Whatever he has done to avenge his fathers death was not worth it. We are not supposed to assume the law. He should have let the law deal with this.

  • Yes, the boy who murdered his father's alleged murder should be jailed or institutionalized.

    Yes, the boy who murdered his father's alleged murder should be jailed or institutionalized. If he does not suffer the consequences of his actions, this will set a dangerous precedent that people who feel they have been wronged can take the law into their own hands. The rule of law must be preserved.

  • Yes, he should.

    The boy took the law in his own hands and decided that he was going to revenge his fathers death. This was the worst decision, since the law does not care about the loss that you are avenging. He should therefore be jailed for his actions so that the rest of the society can learn from this.

  • Substance over form.

    Sure the boy killed another human being, and that is against the law; there's no two ways about it. But rather than adopt cheaply available conventional notions (largely, because they are superficial and easy to use in such circumstances), I posit to look at the case on its merits.

    Punishment availed to those practicing the law are basically limited to just 2 options: restrict a man's freedom by way of imposing physical/social confinement upon him, and to remove him of his right to live. And in looking at the nature of these punishments where the goal is plain to see: negative reinforcement to deter future antisocial behaviors (the death penalty having an indirect influence on those might consider committing crimes warranting such a sentencing that it would deter them from acting so); preventing any future occurrences of such events from occurring again. Surely, the boy's actions can be defined as antisocial, but will it occur in the future? As far as this anecdotal evidence shows, it is wholly possible that he will act out in this manner again, should the similar circumstances arise: he will kill for revenge over the loss of an object that bears similar weight to the value he had placed on his father's existence (this one can be a little tricky to quantify, but not impossible), yet he may not being that his only father has been killed, and such a situation can never be repeated; the former being a classic case of gambler's fallacy, and the latter, being an objective consideration of the components of the situation. So now begs the question: Will punishment of the aforementioned nature be beneficial, specific to this boy who killed a man who he saw kill his father, to society?

    And I am hard pressed to say no, because the boy only killed a man to take revenge for killing the only person who was, and can ever be, his father; the situation is a closed loop, and therefore, to incarcerate him is unfair based on the mere possibility that he will pursue such actions again (assuming that criminal behavior is not of his wont; gambler's fallacy of a person who has never felt so great an impetus as to act upon a desire to kill, can distort the objectivity of this issue) and for his actions, which can be justified (punishment is a fickle thing; some agree to the death penalty, some don't) from an "eye for an eye" perspective (a perspective which is, to an extent, incorporated into modern law), and if he had felt threatened by the man (after all the man did kill his father whose relationship with the boy renders them very similar in identity, or at least, perceived identity) enough to kill him, or in moment of blinding rage (momentary insanity) killed the man.

    But nonetheless he does deserve to receive therapy for having witnessed something so traumatic and after learning the ability to act above the law.

  • No he should not!

    The boy took the law into his own hands due to rage and anger, as would most people as the ability to kill is in every human being on the planet, he should however be made responsible for his actions, military service would better suit the punishment, at least he can learn control and discipline through the military.

    Posted by: KwLm

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.